Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

LocalDB vs SQL Server comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 2, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

LocalDB
Ranking in Relational Databases Tools
17th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SQL Server
Ranking in Relational Databases Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
272
Ranking in other categories
Database Management Systems (DBMS) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Relational Databases Tools category, the mindshare of LocalDB is 1.5%, down from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SQL Server is 11.8%, down from 19.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Relational Databases Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
SQL Server11.8%
LocalDB1.5%
Other86.7%
Relational Databases Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Srini-Dhanaraj - PeerSpot reviewer
Founder & CEO at imfine.club
The database always has structured data, like rows, columns, and bases
LocalDB is an excellent solution for learners, beginners, and projects of negligible size; it is very good. Any startup can use a local database to start. Once they grow beyond its limits, they can migrate to a MS SQL server that's also available on-premises. I rate it ten out of ten.
Peter Larsson - PeerSpot reviewer
Data Warehouse Lead at Resurs Bank AB (publ.)
Ledger and seamless integrations have strengthened trusted analytics and unified workloads
SQL Server's high availability and disaster recovery features work for supporting mission-critical applications, but there is much more to wish for. These features are not quite ready yet, although they do function. However, they could be significantly better. High availability and disaster recovery features should be improved in the next releases. I have noticed that everything could be improved or enhanced in the future, particularly temporal tables and window functions. Sometimes, I believe Microsoft releases features to stay ahead of competitors, but they do not make them feature-rich or feature-complete. They release something to be ahead of leaders and then seem to forget to maintain and upgrade them. I want Microsoft to pay more attention and be more mindful about the things they implement. It is fine to do a first release that works, but you cannot simply abandon it in the following years without service packs and improvements. You must continue to build on features rather than forgetting about them.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The initial setup was simple."
"The solution is fast."
"LocalDB is an excellent solution for learners, beginners, and projects of negligible size; it is very good."
"The most valuable feature of LocalDBis the connection between the application and DB."
"The initial setup is very straightforward. The guidelines are very easy to follow. Maintenance is very easy and requires very little manpower."
"The solution is easy to use and provides similar features to other competitors."
"The backups are excellent."
"SQL Server is very good, it can be used as a transactional database and used to support the data warehouse. Additionally, the ANSI-compliant satisfies our database properties."
"The solution is very easy to use. It's intuitive and easy to navigate. Overall, it's a straightforward product."
"We've found it to basically be pretty problem-free."
"We have found there are many useful features such as the solution is continually being upgraded, ETL capabilities for extracting and transformation, and it is very easy to use."
"The management studio is probably the thing we use the most for running quick queries and creating quick reports. Quite often, somebody comes and says, "Hey, can you find XYZ?" It is so much easier just to jump in there and run a quick query."
"The solution's most valuable feature is that we can set up redundant databases and replication in the databases."
 

Cons

"It is only for a small amount of data. Local DB is made for the purpose of small-volume optics."
"The internal connection features of LocalDB could improve."
"The ALM features can be improved, but the database by itself is reliable."
"The initial setup is complex and requires a skilled person."
"The solution needs to create a management tool. Right now, the solution has tools for creating a local installation, but it's too simplistic. We need something that's a bit more complex so that we can extend the tools with our scripts."
"Performance could be better. But I don't know if it's a problem with my application or with my database."
"Could have additional security."
"The solution could be better integrated with the SQL Server Studio tool."
"Improvement in SQL Server should focus on lowering the high cost, especially for environments requiring extensive CPU and memory usage like data warehousing"
"It would be better if it had more integration with other systems."
"Linux-based editions are not yet proven to be on par with Windows deployments."
"There should be more tools and documentation for tuning the performance of Microsoft SQL Server. It would be nice to have more tools for tuning because currently, all the tuning that we have to do with our databases is almost manual. We have to read a bunch of knowledge base articles, and this information should be better documented. Its free text search should also be improved. It is quite important for us. Currently, we're developing our own free text search because of the lacking flexibility in Microsoft SQL Server. Therefore, we're kind of using elastic search and making different implementations in order to reach our targets. Using just the native free text search of Microsoft SQL Server is not enough for us. It should have more flexible features as compared to the current version."
"The price could be better. In the next release, it would be better if the database was more easily extendable."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing cost is too high for LocalDB."
"The fees are fair."
"SQL Server is a cost-effective solution for a small database."
"Some of the licensing are very expensive, such as the Enterprise license."
"The price could be better. Aside from the basic features, if you need any additional features that can be extended, for example, if you want to connect with the heterogeneous databases, they are being managed as separate services and not included in the package. If you manage a database in Azure, it's not providing SFS and reporting services. However, on-premises, if you purchase the SQL Server license, it includes SFIS and SFRS services. If you take Postgre SQL and MySQL, they provide almost all the same features even though they are both open source databases."
"It is something we have been using for a lot of years. If we're paying, it should be reasonable."
"As compared to Oracle Database, SQL Server is less expensive. For mid-sized organizations, SQL Server is completely all right, but people say it can't support large organizations with more than 2,000 users."
"Synapse is a bit costly. If I compare it with different databases, I think it's a reasonable price"
"The price could be cheaper."
"The price of the solution could be reduced, it is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Relational Databases Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,515 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
38%
Computer Software Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Comms Service Provider
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business119
Midsize Enterprise59
Large Enterprise115
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with LocalDB?
Technically speaking, you don't need to get any updates because it's not online. It's on-premise. So once it is installed, then you get a desktop-grade version. But the purpose of LocalDB is not th...
What is your primary use case for LocalDB?
There were multiple systems, some planned, like the mainframe, the gold database, a website, and a manual Excel spreadsheet. These were the various data sources, and we wanted to bring everything i...
Would you say the price of SQL Server is high compared to that of similar products?
SQL Server is fairly priced because it has various editions, depending on the number of users, servers, or core packs you are using. If you compare the product to others in this category, the price...
Has using SQL Server helped your organization in any way?
SQL Server has helped my organization through partitioning to distribute the workload, as it splits them up into smaller pieces so the machines can easily deal with it. However, this comes with a h...
Which authentication mode is best for SQL Server?
My company connects through SQL Server authentication. We have company Windows accounts, but we do not want to connect the two, out of security concerns and to keep things separated for our own pur...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Microsoft SQL Server, MSSQL, MS SQL
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AstraZeneca, Kienzle Automotive GmbH, Kodak Alaris, Unilever, Floatel International and Kongsberg Maritime, MyHero
Microsoft SQL Server is used by businesses in every industry, including Great Western Bank, Aviva, the Volvo Car Corporation, BMW, Samsung, Principality Building Society, Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and the Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario.
Find out what your peers are saying about LocalDB vs. SQL Server and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
881,515 professionals have used our research since 2012.